Boing Boinghttp://boingboing.net
Brain candy for Happy MutantsFri, 09 Dec 2016 15:39:45 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.187954168Meet Science: What is "peer review"?http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html
http://boingboing.net/2011/04/22/meet-science-what-is.html#commentsFri, 22 Apr 2011 02:02:06 +0000When the science you learned in school and the science you read in the newspaper don't quite match up, the Meet Science series is here to help, providing quick run-downs of oft-referenced concepts, controversies, and tools that aren't always well-explained by the media.

"According to a peer-reviewed journal article published this week ..."

How often have you read that phrase? How often have I written that phrase? If we tried
to count, there would probably be some powers of 10 involved. It's clear from the context that "peer-reviewed journal articles" are the hard currency of science. But the context is less obliging on the whys
and wherefores.

Who are these "peers" that do the reviewing? What, precisely, do they review? Does a peer-reviewed paper always deserve respect, and how much trust should we place in the process of peer
review, itself? If you don't have a degree in the sciences, and you aren't particularly well-versed in self-taught
science Inside Baseball, there's really no reason why you should know the answers to all
those questions. You can't be an expert in everything, and this isn't something that's explicitly taught
in most high schools or basic level college science courses. And yet, I and the rest of the science media
continue to reference "peer review" like all our readers know exactly what we're talking about.

I think it's high time to rectify that mistake. Ladies and gentlemen, meet peer review:

(more…)]]>When the science you learned in school and the science you read in the newspaper don't quite match up, the Meet Science series is here to help, providing quick run-downs of oft-referenced concepts, controversies, and tools that aren't always well-explained by the media.

"According to a peer-reviewed journal article published this week ..."

How often have you read that phrase? How often have I written that phrase? If we tried
to count, there would probably be some powers of 10 involved. It's clear from the context that "peer-reviewed journal articles" are the hard currency of science. But the context is less obliging on the whys
and wherefores.

Who are these "peers" that do the reviewing? What, precisely, do they review? Does a peer-reviewed paper always deserve respect, and how much trust should we place in the process of peer
review, itself? If you don't have a degree in the sciences, and you aren't particularly well-versed in self-taught
science Inside Baseball, there's really no reason why you should know the answers to all
those questions. You can't be an expert in everything, and this isn't something that's explicitly taught
in most high schools or basic level college science courses. And yet, I and the rest of the science media
continue to reference "peer review" like all our readers know exactly what we're talking about.

I think it's high time to rectify that mistake. Ladies and gentlemen, meet peer review: